A presentation by UK expert, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, on health and environmental impacts associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation, with an especial focus on 5G, to an invited audience including Bath MP, Wera Hobhouse, BANES council leader, Dine Romero, and other BANES councillors and members of the public. Guildhall Bath – 5th July 2019.
A landmark Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Berkeley’s cell phone right to know ordinance rejecting industries argument that the ordinance violates the first amendment. The Berkeley ordinance requires retailers to inform consumers that cell phones emit radiation and that “if you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation.” In upholding this decision, the panel concluded that the public health issues at hand were “substantial” and that the “text of the Berkeley notice was literally true,” and “uncontroversial.”
Further, the panel determined that the Berkeley ordinance did not constitute preemption.
“Far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance complemented and enforced it.”
The panel held that Berkeley’s required disclosure simply alerted consumers to the safety disclosures that the Federal Communications Commission required, and directed consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure.
Industry is expected to appeal for a full court en banc review, but this reviewing “panel concluded that CTIA had little likelihood of success based on conflict preemption.”
In response to this court rulingCTIA-v-Berkeley-9th-Circuit-opinion-7-2-2019 Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust (EHT) issued the following statement:
“Congratulations to the hard-working indomitable Town Council and Citizens of Berkeley, California for upholding The Right to Know. More than a decade in the making this decision assures the right to know that cell phones emit radiation and that when the phone is touching the body levels can be exceeded.
Democracy rests on an informed public that freely consents to be governed. Reliable information is key to the functioning of our system. The right to know is essential to all citizens. And the duty to warn about potential hazards is an obligation of any company. Wherever the right to know and the duty to warn are not followed democracy itself is imperiled.
Thanks to the Berkeley ordinance billions more will learn that cell phones are two-way microwave radios and our bodies absorb this microwave radiation. New scientific studies, the work of the Phonegate Association and investigations from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation confirm that cellphones can exceed the US FCC limits up toeleven timeswhen held next to the body.
We at the Environmental Health Trust want to extend a great big thank you to Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law. And to all the many individuals who have dedicated their time to this important work including Joel Moskowitz PhD, Ellie Marks, Llyod Morgan, and many more.”
The Berkeley Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance requires retailers post a notice with the following text.
“The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
Dr. Davis, Visiting Professor of Medicine, The Hebrew University, and the author of more than 220 scientific publications, is also the author of Disconnect–the truth about cellphone radiation. Prof. Davis testified on this issue before the Berkeley City Council in 2011 and 2015 alongside Joel Moskowitz, PhD, the Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law who has represented Berkeley pro bono. In addition, Davisalso testified in the2009 Congressional Hearings on cell phone radiation regarding the fine print warnings on cell phone radiation buried in cell phones, urging public access to that information.
“While I am thrilled with the court decision and the fact that the ordinance remains it should not be this difficult. I started working on this with past city council member Max Anderson in 2009. But we did prevail over a $ trillion industry and their high priced lawyers thus I am happy to see justice prevailed. Consumers deserve the right to know in order to make informed decisions as to how they and their families use their cell phones. I am hopeful that we will now take this valuable ordinance to many other cities and in doing so save lives,” stated Ellie Marks of the California Brain Tumor Association who has long advocated for the right to know and also testified in the 2008 Congressional hearings on cell phone radiation.
In Europe, 13 phone models have been recalled or software updated afterPhonegate Alerte pressured the French government to release cell phone radiation measurement data from hundreds of cell phones. “The fact that cell phones exceed federal limits when tested touching the body is a scandal that has been going on for 30 years. It affects billions of cell phone users worldwide and will shake the cell phone industry itself,” stated Dr. Arazi who filed charges against the Chinese manufacturer Xiaomi for cell phone radiation measurements that violated regulatory levels.
“Parents are unaware that when a child holds a phone or iPad in their lap, or when then their teenager tucks the phone in their pants, that their child could absorbs radiation at levels that exceed US cell phone radiation limits,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT. “We contacted the FDA when the French cell phone data were first released three years ago and called on them to take action. Yet no action? The CDC, FDA, and FCC must inform the public about this and take action to ensure protection for all cell phone users, especially children, and teenagers.” Scarato pointed out that manufacturers have buried fine print warnings regarding distances consumers should maintain wireless devices in not only for cell phones but also for wireless laptops, baby monitors, cordless phones, wireless speakers, and even drones and “smarthome” devices. EHT has a webpage listing the fine print warnings for many of these devices online.
Previous to Berkeley’s Ordinance, San Francisco became the first city in the country to pass and adopt cell phone safety legislation. The San Francisco ‘Right to Know’ ordinance was unanimously approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on August 2, 2011. The ordinance required cell phone retailers to provide their customers with information detailing that if a user holds a phone too close to their body, a phone may exceed the radiofrequency energy exposure limitation set by the Federal Communications Commission.
Cell phone retailers were to provide information that provides measures customers can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones. The original ordinance required that this information be provided via a store poster, and afactsheet to be given out with each phone sold and upon customer request.
However the CTIA (The Wireless Association) sued the cityand implementation of the ordinance was blocked in 2012 after a three year court battle.Although implementation in cell phone retail stores was halted, a City webpagedetailing ways to reduce exposure to wireless radiation. The Berkeley was designed to be purely factual simply ensuring that consumers were provided FCC information on the fact that cell phone radiation can exceed limits if devices are used in close proximity to the body.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on July 2019 – Court Upholds Landmark Berkeley Cell Phone Radiation Right To Know Ordinance And Rejects Industries Appeal
5G is rated as a “high impact” emerging risk affecting property and casualty claims in more than 3 years.
“As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.”
“5G – short for fifth generation – is the latest standard for cellular mobile communications. Providing ultrafast broadband connection with higher capacity and lower latency, 5G is not only heaven for your smartphone. It will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the Internet of things (IoT), whether that be autonomous cars or sensor-steered factory. In doing so, it will allow decentralised seamless interconnectivity between devices.
To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.
Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker. A large-scale breakthrough of autonomous cars and other IoT applications will mean that security features need to be enhanced at the same pace. Without, interruption and subversion of the 5G platform could trigger catastrophic, cumulative damage. …
Potential impacts:
Cyber exposures are significantly increased with 5G, as attacks become faster and higher in volume. This increases the challenge of defence.
Growing concerns of the health implications of 5G may lead to political friction and delay of implementation, and to liability claims. The introductions of 3G and 4G faced similar challenges.
Information security and national sovereignty concerns might delay implementation of 5G further, increasing uncertainty for planning authorities, investors, tech companies and insurers.
Heated international dispute over 5G contractors and potential for espionage or sabotage could affect international cooperation, and impact financial markets negatively.
As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on May 2019 – WORLD LEADING INSURANCE COMPANY, SWISS RE CLASSIFIES 5G AS “HIGH” IMPACT EMERGING RISK IN WHITE PAPER
A couple of weeks back, I hadtweeted about my ongoing interest in 5G technology, which is all set to be introduced in a few countries by 2020. It is a technology that is making waves at the moment and is gradually winning more people over with the kind of benefits it promises. As an investor and tech enthusiast, I too was looking forward to knowing how this technology could boost the current internet usage speed.
However, I was mildly amused whenWilliam Kelley Eidem, the author of the book ‘The Doctor Who Cures Cancer’, reached out to me over mail. Eidem wished to warn me about the potential health risks associated with 5G technology, and how it wouldn’t be right for me to use my platform to promote such a dangerous technology. We had a long drawn out conversation regarding how the technology is causing damage to people and bringing about a flu epidemic. I wouldn’t lie, it sounded extremely serious. Which is why I decided to investigate the matter further.
Now Eidem says, that more people will be experiencing ‘sickness in the extreme, including cramps, vomiting, diarrhoea, strokes, fainting, skin rashes, ringing in the ears, and on and on’ because of the devastating effects of 5G technology. On digging a little deeper, I found out that many cities in the US are well on their way to roll out their new phase of 5G technology. Most recently in the city of Providence, despite community opposition to the proposals over possible health effects, the new phase is all set to launch soon.
According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., there hasn’t been adequate studies on the health effects of 5G technology. He primarily blames the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration for their lack of oversight.
He said during a committee hearing.
“We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.” But have scientists really not delved deeper into studying the effects of this technology?
That is in fact not true. I was slightly taken aback when I came across a petition opposing 5G technology, which had the support of more than 26,000 Scientists. The petition titled ‘Wireless Radiation: Stop The 5G Network On Earth And In Space, Devastating Impacts On Health And The Environment’ was addressed to the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations.
The abstract of that petition read:
“We the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens from (__) countries, urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5G (fifth generation) wireless network, including 5G from space satellites. 5G will massively increase exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation on top of 2G, 3G, and 4G networks for telecommunications already in place. RF radiation has been proven harmful to humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”
As it turns out, all this hue and cry and the backlash isn’t for nothing. I mean we have all known about the harmful effects of cell phone radiation, but have chosen to use them anyway. But is ignorance bliss, in this case? It seems that the negative effects of 5G technology are more profound and pronounced. The scale at which the 5G technology wave is expected to roll out can be severely detrimental to human/animal life and the ecology on planet Earth. 5G will use phased array antennas to shoot beams of radiation at cell phones which according to the evidence available today, can cause severe damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in both plants and animals.
There is significant evidence present which indicates that electromagnetic pollution is largely responsible for causing modern day diseases like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Additionally, with the proposed 5G from space programme, an estimated 20,000 satellites are to be deployed in space to offer 5G technology. If each of these satellites ‘emit millimetre waves with an effective radiated power of up to 5 million watts from thousands of antennas arranged in a phased array’, then it will drastically alter the electromagnetic environment of Earth and set us up for inevitable doom.
It is true that I was unaware of the severe health risks, that mass adoption of 5G technology can bring about on us. But now that I know better, I shall endeavour to work in my capacity as a fellow citizen of the planet, to spread greater awareness regarding this epidemic. I agree that as an entrepreneur and tech enthusiast, I have always envisioned emerging technologies paving the way forward for the improvement of our society. But we have to sometimes pause and ask ourselves, at what cost? Lives of animals and plants seem like too steep a price to pay in the name of development.
European countries are rolling out 5G mobile communications at breakneck speed as they seek to gain a competitive edge over the US and Asia. But some scientists have raised questions about the effects of 5G mobile phone radiation on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach
By 2020, at least one major city in every state in the European Union (EU) is due to have a 5G mobile phone service in operation, and by 2025, three-quarters of the European population is expected to have 5G access.
The new mobile phone technology promises to bring huge economic benefits, in the form of superfast mobile services, smart cities and intelligent devices connected and controlled through the internet of things.
It’s no surprise that Europe is racing to create a smart society, with the UK government one of many aiming to expedite 5G roll-out. London alone has nine trial sites.
Network operator EE has chosen 16 cities across the country to welcome its 5G services this year. Vodafone presented the captain of Manchester City’s women’s football team performing ball tricks on stage as a hologram at its launch. And Nokia has demonstrated how robots can solve intricate tasks in collaboration using 5G.
Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, “shares the government’s ambition for the UK to become a world leader in 5G” and plans “to release different types of spectrum bands for 5G as soon as practicable”. The watchdog has committed “to ensure site access and planning are not a barrier to the deployment of 5G”.
But behind the scenes, there is an ongoing debate about whether the telecoms industry and governments are rushing to implement the society of tomorrow, without fully scrutinising the long-term health effects of the electromagnetic radiation produced by 5G.
The radiation produced by mobile phones and phone masts is non-ionising radiation, which means that it does not directly cause cell and DNA damage, through the same mechanisms as X-rays or radioactive particles.
But electromagnetic radiation in high power densities can cause damage through other mechanisms, such as thermal damage by heating the skin in much the same way that a microwave oven cooks food.
Scientists argue for more research
The Swiss Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT’IS) is an independent, non-profit organisation that researches the safety and quality of emerging electromagnetic technologies.
The foundation’s director and co-founder, Niels Kuster, says the implementation of 5G will use much higher frequency bands than 2G, 3G or 4G to satisfy the growing demand in data rates, but this induces much higher power density in human skin.
“Health risks associated with the omnipresent radio-frequency radiation for mobile devices [must be] studied before we expose the whole population [to] ever-rising levels of the electromagnetic fields from this technology”
Ernst von Weizsäcker, scientist
His colleague, Esra Neufeld, a scientist and consultant, adds: “The current standards do not prevent thermal damage of the skin and should be corrected in the next revision of the guidelines.”
5G will operate in a range of frequencies known as the millimetre wave band. Neufeld says there are “almost no studies at the millimetre wave range which can be used [to assess] risks” that technology poses for people, and such research is urgently needed.
One of the most renowned experts on environment policy in Germany, professor Ernst von Weizsäcker, goes further, calling for the deployment of 5G to be delayed until its risks are understood.
“We do not know for sure whether the mobile data transmission technology poses health risks, but we cannot yet exclude it either,” he says.
“Thus, we must insist that the health risks associated with the omnipresent radio-frequency radiation for mobile devices are studied before we expose the whole population with ever-rising levels of the electromagnetic fields from this technology.”
International safety standards
With few exceptions, governments on several continents are supporting and promoting the upgrade of mobile telecommunications to 5G frequencies which offer faster download speeds.
Governments, including the UK, take advice on radiation limits from a German-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which has become the de facto organisation for assessing mobile safety and setting radiation exposure limits.
Eric Van Rongen, who chairs ICNIRP, tells us: “ICNIRP establishes whether health effects have been found and, on the basis of that, sets its limits. That is done with a large degree of conservatism.”
“The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection establishes whether health effects have been found and, on the basis of that, sets its limits. That is done with a large degree of conservatism”
Eric Van Rongen, ICNIRP
While many 5G pilots are already under way, ICNIRP is reviewing its own mobile technology-related radiation advice and is expected to release revised limits later this year. ICNIRP is an independent body, which is not subjected to the same levels of scrutiny received by public organisations.
Governments are aware of health fears over new technologies. The EU Treaty and the European Commission refer to the precautionary principle, which should guide decisions to implement products or policies with unknown risks. In the 5G roll-out frenzy, most governments observe ICNIRP’s limits, which set safe exposure levels for electromagnetic radiation produced by mobile phones, phone towers and other radio emissions.
Some countries take the issue more seriously than others. France has prohibited Wi-Fi in kindergartens and restricted the use of Wi-Fi in primary schools. Cyprus has done the same. Switzerland has legally binding precautionary limits that are 10 times stricter for mobile communications installations than those of ICNIRP. Italy, Poland and Luxembourg have also set lower exposure limits than those of ICNIRP.
This cautious approach is not without problems. In Italy, for example, the country’s lower limits meant it was difficult to upgrade 3G antenna sites to 4G without reconfiguring the sites.
But this is not preventing the fast-track deployment of 5G networks across Europe….
BY CONAN MILNER, May 23, 2019Updated: May 25, 2019
(Children are particularly vulnerable to microwave sickness because of the industrial Wi-Fi networks used in schools and their smaller bodies. Symptoms include headaches, sensitivity to light, sleep and cognitive problems, and nosebleeds. Some may hear strange sounds that seem to come from inside their heads)
In 2016, U.S. officials stationed overseas started showing signs of a mysterious illness. The list of symptoms included headaches, sensitivity to light, sleep and cognitive problems, and nosebleeds. Many heard strange sounds that seemed to come from inside their heads.
Over the next two years, dozens of diplomats staying in U.S. embassies in Cuba and China all developed the same list of symptoms. Doctors summed it up as a type of brain trauma, but there’s no official answer of the cause. The lead theory is that the diplomats were the target of an unusual weapon—one that emits a directed pulse of microwave radiation.
In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Mark Lenzi, a State Department security officer who worked in the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China, said that he and his wife began to suffer after hearing strange sounds in their apartment. Lenzi seemed certain that they were the victims of an energy weapon.
“This was a directed standoff attack against my apartment,” Lenzi told “60 minutes.” “I believe it’s RF, radio frequency energy, in the microwave range.
The first scientist to suggest that microwaves were the cause of the illness was Dr. Beatrice Golomb, a professor of medicine at the University of California–San Diego, and a researcher who examines how drugs and environmental toxins harm health. When she heard about the diplomats’ symptoms, her first thought was microwave exposure.
“The profile of symptoms does not match anything else I’m familiar with,” Golomb said. “These are highly distinctive symptoms known to occur only in that setting. The likelihood that it could be anything else is very remote.”
Golomb wrote apaperoutlining her case. Before it was even submitted for publication, it caught the attention of State Department officials eager for a meaningful explanation. She wrote that one major reason why the diplomats’ illness suggests a microwave cause is theauditory symptomsthey experienced: hearing loss, tinnitus, and the presence of a chirping, ringing, hissing, or buzzing sound.
“The difference in the sound counts, in part, due to head dimensions,” Golomb said. “There were also reports that the sounds were tightly localized in space. When people moved, the sound’s source seemed to follow them. That’s not the case for stationary sound forces, but it is the case for the micro-auditory effect because the sound is actually produced in the head.”
This microwave-induced phenomenon is known as the “Frey effect” or “radio frequency hearing,” and was proven by Dr. Alan Frey in 1965 when he was working for the U.S. Navy. A 1976 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report described how to stimulate it: “Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities.” ….
Author : Devra Davis, PhD., MPH, is Visiting Professor Medicine, The Hebrew University. An award-winning writer and scientist, she is also President of Environmental Health Trust www.ehtrust.org.
Accusations of Russia lobbying are ricocheting around the media and have now been extended through a front-page article in theNew York Times positing that scientists and consumer advocates calling to halt 5G have fallen under the spell of RT, a news network registered as a Russian foreign agent in the U.S. Could it be a coincidence that following on the heels of the NY Times story, theWall Street Journal and the UK Telegraph have echoed the same smear of guilt by association, portraying scientists who warn of the potential environmental and health damages of 5G as untethered alarmists unwittingly linked to Russian propaganda? These otherwise credible media sources ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing hazards of wireless radiation and 5G detailed in independent journalistic investigations that have appeared extensively in media throughout Europe and been covered by major networks.
William J. Broad, author of the Times’ unusually placed opinion piece, is an award-winning investigative journalist, known for searching studies of complex technical issues including matters of space exploration and national intelligence. By relegating concerns about 5G to a Russian ploy, he misses altogether the fact that the purportedly independent international authorities on which he relies that declare 5G to be safe are an exclusive club of industry-loyal scientists.China,Russia, Poland, Italy and several other European countries allow up to hundreds of times less wireless radiation into the environment from microwave antennas than does the U.S.. Moreover, while many other countries regularly monitor levels of environmental radiation, the last EPA report on the topic was released in 1986, back when a gallon of gasoline cost less than one dollar and streetcars still ran in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Environmental levels of wireless radiation in the U.S. and worldwide are growing exponentially.
The history of research on the environmental and public health impacts of radio frequency microwave radiation (“wireless radiation”) reveals some uneasy parallels with that of tobacco. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists who showed the harmful impacts of tobacco found themselves struggling for serious attention and financial support. The validity of their views was only accepted after the toll of sickness and death had become undeniable. For health impacts from wireless radiation, a similar pattern is emerging. Each time a U.S. government agency produced positive findings, research on health impacts was de-funded. The Office of Naval Research, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency all once had vibrant research programs documenting dangers of wireless radiation. All found their programs scrapped, reflecting pressure from those who sought to suppress this work.
Russian’s 50 years of research on electromagnetic radiation since the Cold War has led to their clear understanding that this exposure does have biological effects. The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection issued a 2011 Resolution recommending persons under 18 not use a cell phone. Further, in asserting that there is no science indicating risks of wireless radiation, Broad ignores his earlier reporting that American diplomats serving in Cuba and China have been diagnosed with brain disorders that serious scientists like Professor of Medicine, Beatrice Golomb, MD PhD, have attributed to targeted microwave radiation. He also discounts scientificreviews and studies from severalnations showing sperm damage from cellphone radiation along with the advice from the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics for men to keep phones off their bodies if they want to have healthy babies and optimal performance, as well as advice from the American Academy of Pediatrics that families should reduce wireless radiation exposures.
In response to first U.S. reports that wireless radiation damaged the DNA of rat brains in 1994, Motorola directed their public relations agency to carry out strategic efforts to “war-game” the science and dismiss and discredit both the research and researchers. Motorola once sponsored the most brilliant and productive scientists in the field of bio-electromagnetics. But, as one insider recently relayed, as industry scientists began to produce studies indicating the need to reduce radiation exposures, their work was suspended. That program no longer exists.
The autobiographical “Cell Phone Radiation — Russian Roulette” tells the story of senior telecom engineer, Robert C. Kane, who had willingly served as a guinea pig for Motorola and other companies developing new wireless technologies in the 1980s. Until he died from brain cancer in 2002, Kane sought to persuade others about the dangers, noting:
“Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distributing of products hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of those effects.”
In 2018 the U.S. gold standard National Toxicology testing Program (NTP) confirmed that wireless radiation from cell phones could cause the same malignant brain tumor that felled Kane. The FDA rejected the NTP conclusions arguing that NTP exposures were not relevant to humans, despite the fact that the agency had requested the studies and approved the specific design a decade earlier. Dr. Ronald Melnick, the senior NIH toxicologist who designed the $30 million study concluded:
“The NTP studies were conducted to test the widely-held assumption that cell phone radiofrequency radiation could not cause cancers or other adverse health effects (other than by tissue heating) because this type of radiation (non-ionizing) did not have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds. The NTP findings that cell phone radiation caused cancers in the heart and brain, DNA damage in brain cells, heart muscle disease and reduced birth weights clearly demonstrate that the assumption that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer or other health effects is wrong.”
The absence of a major epidemic of brain cancer at this time should not be misconstrued as proof of safety for cell phones or other wireless technology.. The technology is too new, the expanded uses too recent, and the ways we employ phones keep changing, making it even more challenging to evaluate their impacts or for us to be able to see any evidence of major population pattern changes. It took four decades before increases in smoking produced measurable increases in lung cancers. The tremendous increase in cellphone use in infants, toddlers and young children, has led Israel, France, Belgium, India, and other high tech nations toreduce exposures in the young .
When it comes to downplaying the potential risks of wireless radiation, the telecom industry makes the tobacco industry look like rank amateurs. For years, respectable American and European scientists carried out research supported by the Tobacco Industry Research Council, at a time when there was little government sponsorship of science. Only when bodies of evidence accumulated, making the dangers of tobacco undeniable, were tobacco-funded studies brought to an end. The achievements of the tobacco industry in manipulating science led Judge Gladys Kessler to confirm a verdict of racketeering that included manipulating institutions such as the American Medical Association and National Cancer Institute — both of which at various times worked to build a safe cigarette.
As GQ reported a decade ago, the telecommunications industry uses the same PR strategies, some of the same industry consultants and scientists to promote disinformation in defense of their addictive products. Further, in 2015 a Harvard expose tracked the revolving door between the FCC and the telecom industry and concluded that the FCC is a captured agency and that “Consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence.”
Surprisingly for someone who has charted the work of NASA for years, Broad appears oblivious to the fact that serious scientists are raising questions about the ways that “Global 5G wireless networks threaten weather forecasts.” A recent story in the respected scientific journal Nature explains that water vapor is measured at a frequency quite close to those employed by Earth-observing satellites flying over areas of the United States. If widespread proposed 5G wireless coverage fills the airways, then satellites will not be able to detect changes in water vapor in the atmosphere key to predicting massive shifts in weather that we have been experiencing in recent years.
“This is the first time we’ve seen a threat to what I’d call the crown jewels of our frequencies — the ones that we absolutely must defend come what may,” says Stephen English, a meteorologist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.
Reportedly, weather experts within the U.S. government are being muzzled. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA are currently locked in a high-stakes negotiation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees US wireless networks. When NOAA and NASA asked the FCC to protect these frequencies from interference as 5G rolls out, the FCC rebuffed the weather scientists. The sale ended on 17 April and reaped the U.S. nearly $2 billion. This week, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington have written the FCC urging that steps be taken to protect national security and weather science.
Could the failure to report these critical 5G issues and correct misleading information regarding health effects of wireless and 5G in the New York Times have anything to do with the their new joint venture with Verizon in 5G journalism, or the fact that the Times board of directors includes officials from Facebook, Verizon, Media Lab, and other stalwarts of the telecom industry, while Carlos Slim, head of some of the largest telecom firms in the world, has downsized and now owns just 15 percent of its stock?
It is frankly astonishing that a seasoned science journalist like Broad would rely on an outdated “factsheet” from 2014, that was prepared for the EMF Project of the World Health Organization, a group led by industry-supported scientists. Curiously, Broad cites this 5 year old World Health Organization (WHO) statement as showing that cellphones are safe, and ignores the fact that another expert group within the WHO reached an entirely different conclusion nearly a decade ago. In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011 declared that cellphone radiation was a possible human carcinogen. More recently, the IARC advisory group has called for a re-evaluation in light of the NTP and other newstudies published since 2011. Several experts nowconsider wireless radiation to be a definite human carcinogen.
Although one would not know it from the Times, the WSJ and other accounts, other nations are demanding safety information before proceeding with 5G. The health minister of Brussels recently declared that their citizens will not be guinea pigs, effectively halting 5G in Europe’s capital. Reports from Switzerland indicate that officials in Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchatel voted to halt new deployments until safety is demonstrated. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. WSJ columnist has just pointed out that, contrary to the notion that all concerns about 5G are merely the work of clueless feckless Russian trolls, British, U.S. and Russian research on the dangers of electromagnetic fields go back thirty years.
Also missing from these recent stories is any mention of the fact that Senator Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) and Representatives. Anna G. Eshoo and Jackie Speier (California), Thomas Suozzi (New York), and Peter A. DeFazio (Oregon) have all demanded evidence of safety from the FCC. At a March, 2019 Senate Commerce hearing where Blumenthal directly questioned officials, he criticized the government’s lack of response stating , “I believe the American people deserve to know what the health effects are…We are flying blind here on health and safety.”
Finding such a slanted report in the Times, is especially disconcerting to those who have long believed that that newspaper printed all the news that was fit to print without prejudice, and that the ‘truth is now more important than ever.’ Indeed it is the truth, and our capacity to agree on what that constitutes, that is imperiled by stories such as Broad has filed, and others are now echoing.
Devra Davis, PhD., MPH, is Visiting Professor Medicine, The Hebrew University. An award-winning writer and scientist, she is also President of Environmental Health Trust www.ehtrust.org.
